I'm currently wishing to validate my order in Prestashop.
In fact, for the need of a module, I don't use validateOrder() function from the file PaymentModule.php
By doing it manually, the order process is OK (with statut 'Payment accepted') but my order are not validated.
In database, which tables are filled in regarding the order process ? I would like to check my results in the database.
Thanks
When an order is placed in Prestashop, the data in entered in a few database tables.
1) ps_orders : Has the data regarding to the order like cart id, customer id, addresses ids, language in which order is placed, module which is used for payment and total order amount etc etc.
2) ps_order_detail: This table has all the products for a particular order.
3) ps_order_history: This table has the order statuses history. Whenever order status is changed, an entry is made here.
The above are the most commonly used tables. Please note that in particular prestashop versions, some additional tables may be used (new tables may be added to new versions), so you should check the data base tables started with order_ and so on.
You can verify it also by placing a normal order, and then by taking its id, you can check that what data is placed in what tables. Then in your module, you can enter the data for an order in that particular tables.
Hope this will help.
Thank you
Related
I am working on a data warehouse solution, and I am trying to build a dimensional model from tables held in a SQL Server database. Some of the tables include but aren't limited to Customer, Customer Payments, Customer Address, etc.
All these tables in the DB have some fields that are repeated multiple times across each table i.e. Record update date, record creatuin date, active flag, closed flag and a few others. These tables all relate to the Customer in some way, but the tables can be updated independently.
I am in the process of building out a dimension(s) on the back of these tables, but I am struggling to see how best to deal with these repeated fields in an elegant way, as they are all used.
I'll appreciate any guidance from people who have experience with scenarios like this, as I ammjust starting out
If more details are needed, I am happy to provide
Thanks
Before you even consider how to include them, ask if those metadata fields even need to be in your dimensional model? If no one will use the Customer Payment Update Date (vs Created Date or Payment Date), don't bring it into your model. If the customer model includes the current address, you won't need the CustomerAddress.Active flag included as well. You don't need every OLTP field in your model.
Make notes about how you talk about the fields in conversation. How do you identify the current customer address? Check the CurrentAddress flag (CustomerAddress.IsActive). When was the Customer's payment? Check the Customer Payment Date (CustomerPayment.PaymentDate or possibly CustomerPayment.CreatedDate). Try to describe them in common language terms. This will provide the best success in making your model discoverable by your users and intuitive to use.
Naming the columns in the model and source as similar as possible will also help with maintenance and troubleshooting.
Also, make sure you delineate the entities properly. A customer payment would likely be in a separate dimension from the customer. The current address may be in customer, but if there is any value to historical address details, it may make sense to put it into its own dimension, with the Active flag as well.
I've been struggling with how I should indicate that a certain record in a database is the "fallback" or default entry. I've also been struggling with how to reduce my problem to a simple problem statement. I'm going to have to provide an example.
Suppose that you are building a very simple shipping application. You'll take orders and will need to decide which warehouse to ship them from.
Let's say that you have a few cities that have their own dedicated warehouses*; if an order comes in from one of those cities, you'll ship from that city's warehouse. If an order comes in from any other city, you want to ship from a certain other warehouse. We'll call that certain other warehouse the fallback warehouse.
You might decide on a schema like this:
Warehouses
WarehouseId
Name
WarehouseCities
WarehouseId
CityName
The solution must enforce zero or one fallback warehouses.
You need a way to indicate which warehouse should be used if there aren't any warehouses specified for the city in question. If it really matters, you're doing this on SQL Server 2008.
EDIT: To be clear, all valid cities are NOT present in the WarehouseCities table. It is possible for an order to be received for a City not listed in WarehouseCities. In such a case, we need to be able to select the fallback warehouse.
If any number of default warehouses were allowed, or if I was assigning default warehouses to, say, states, I would use a DefaultWarehouse table. I could use such a table here, but I would need to limit it to exactly one row, which doesn't feel right.
How would you indicate the fallback warehouse?
*Of course, in this example we discount the possibility that there might be multiple cities with the same name. The country you are building this application for rigorously enforces a uniqueness constraint on all city names.
I understand your problem, but have questions about parts of it, so I'll be a bit more general.
If at all possible I would store warehouse/backup warehouse data with your inventory data (either directly hanging of warehouses, or if it's product specific off the inventory tables).
If the setup has to be calculated through your business logic then the records should hang off the order/order_item table
In terms how to implement the structure in SQL, I'll assume that all orders ship out of a single warehouse and that the shipping must be hung off the orders table (but the ideas should be applicable elsewhere):
The older way to enforce zero/one backup warehouses would be to hang a Warehouse_Source record of the Orders table and include an "IsPrimary" field or "ShippingPriority" then include a composite unique index that includes OrderID and IsPrimary/ShippingPriority.
if you will only ever have one backup warehouse you could add ShippingSource_WareHouseID and ShippingSource_Backup_WareHouseID fields to the order. Although, this isn't the route I would go.
In SQL 2008 and up we have the wonderful addition of Filtered Indexes. These allow you to add a WHERE clause to your index -- resulting in a more compact index. It also has the added benefit of allowing you to accomplish some things that could only be done through triggers in the past.
You could put a Unique filtered index on OrderID & IsPrimary/ShippingPriority (WHERE IsPrimary = 0).
Add a comment or such if you want me to explain further.
re: how I should indicate that a certain record in a database is the "fallback" or default entry
use another column, isFallback, holding a binary value. I'm assuming your fallback warehouse won't have any cities associated with it.
As I see it, the fallback warehouse after all is just another warehouse and if I understood, every record in WarehouseCities has a reference to one record in Warehouses:
WarehouseCities(*)...(1)Warehouses
Which means that if there are a hundred cities without a dedicated warehouse they all will reference the id of an specific fallback warehouse. So I don't see any problem (which makes me thing I didn't understand the problem), even the model looks well defined.
Now you could identify if a warehouse is fallback warehouse with an attribute like type_warehouse on Warehouses.
EDIT after comment
Assuming there is only one fallback warehouse for the cities not present in WarehouseCities, I suggest to keep the fallback warehouse as just another warehouse and keep its Id (WarehouseId) as an application parameter (a table for parameters maybe?), of course, this solution is programmatically and not attached to your database platform.
For the first time, I am developing in an environment in which there is a central repository for a number of different industry standard reference data tables and many different customers who need to select records from these industry standard reference data tables to fill in foreign key information for their customer specific records.
Because these industry standard reference files are utilized by all customers, I want to reserve Create/Update/Delete access to these records for global product administrators. However, I would like to implement a (semi-)automated interface by which specific customers could request record additions, deletions or modifications to any of the industry standard reference files that are shared among all customers.
I know I need something like a "data change request" table specifying:
user id,
user request datetime,
request type (insert, modify, delete),
a user entered text explanation of the change request,
the user request's current status (pending, declined, completed),
admin resolution datetime,
admin id,
an admin entered text description of the resolution,
etc.
What I can't figure out is how to elegantly handle the fact that these data change requests could apply to dozens of different tables with differing table column definitions. I would like to give the customer users making these data change requests a convenient way to enter their proposed record additions/modifications directly into CRUD screens that look very much like the reference table CRUD screens they don't have write/delete permissions for (with an additional text explanation and perhaps request priority field). I would also like to give the global admins a tool that allows them to view all the outstanding data change requests for the users they oversee sorted by date requested or user/date requested. Upon selecting a data change request record off the list, the admin would be directed to another CRUD screen that would be populated with the fields the customer users requested for the new/modified industry standard reference table record along with customer's text explanation, the request status and the text resolution explanation field. At this point the admin could accept/edit/reject the requested change and if accepted the affected industry standard reference file would be automatically updated with the appropriate fields and the data change request record's status, text resolution explanation and resolution datetime would all also be appropriately updated.
However, I want to keep the actual production reference tables as simple as possible and free from these extraneous and typically null customer change request fields. I'd also like the data change request file to aggregate all data change requests across all the reference tables yet somehow "point to" the specific reference table and primary key in question for modification & deletion requests or the specific reference table and associated customer user entered field values in question for record creation requests.
Does anybody have any ideas of how to design something like this effectively? Is there a cleaner, simpler way I am missing?
Option 1
If preserving the base tables is important then I would create a "change details" table as a child to your change request table. I'm envisioning something like
ChangeID
TableName
TableKeyValue
FieldName
ProposedValue
Add/Change/Delete Indicator
So you'd have a row in this table for every proposed field change. The challenge in this scenario is maintaining the mapping of TableName and FieldName values to the actual tables and fields. If your database structure if fairly static then this may not be an issue.
Option 2
Add a ChangeID field to each of your base tables. When a change is proposed add a record to the base table with the ChangeID populated. So as an example if you have a Company table, for a single company you could have multiple records:
CompanyCode ChangeID CompanyName CompanyAddress
----------- -------- ----------- --------------
COMP1 My Company Boston <-- The "live" record
COMP1 1 New Name Boston <-- A proposed change
When the admin commits the change the existing live record is deleted or archived and the ChangeID value is removed from the proposed record making it the live record. It may be a little tricky to handle proposed deletions with this option. This option also has the potential for impacting performance of selecting live data for normal usage. However it does save you the hassle of maintaining a list of table names and field names somewhere in your code.
I'm sure others will have some opinions!
(Sorry about the vagueness of the title; I can't think how to really say what I'm looking for without writing a book.)
So in our app, we allow users to change key pieces of data. I'm keeping records of who changed what when in a log schema, but now the problem presents itself: how do I best represent that data in a view for reporting?
An example will help: a customer's data (say, billing address) changed on 4/4/09. Let's say that today, 10/19/09, I want to see all of their 2009 orders, before and after the change. I also want each order to display the billing address that was current as of the date of the order.
So I have 4 tables:
Orders (with order data)
Customers (with current customer data)
CustomerOrders (linking the two)
CustomerChange (which holds the date of the change, who made the change (employee id), what the old billing address was, and what they changed it to)
How do I best structure a view to be used by reporting so that the proper address is returned? Or am I better served by creating a reporting database and denormalizing the data there, which is what the reports group is requesting?
There is no need for a separate DB if this is the only thing you are going to do. You could just create a de-normalized table/cube...and populate and retrieve from it. If your data is voluminous apply proper indexes on this table.
Personally I would design this so you don't need the change table for the report. It is a bad practice to store an order without all the data as of the date of the order stored in a table. You lookup the address from the address table and store it with the order (same for partnumbers and company names and anything that changes over time.) You never get information on an order by joining to customer, address, part numbers, price tables etc.
Audit tables are more for fixing bad changes or looking up who made them than for reporting.
If i want to add a record to TABLE A, is there an efficient way to add
a record in the JOIN TABLE for many (or all) records in TABLE B?
I try to build a simple task management (in CakePHP). An user adds a task and there
will be added a connection to each other user in the same group as the
current user.
At the moment, I use the find('list')-method to retrieve the IDs and
store them in a variable. But I think if the groups grow, the PHP
cache won't handle this amount of data in a single variable.
You should look into the Cake Has-And-Belongs-To-Many (HABTM) relationships. Check the cake book. It will allow you to create a relationship between two tables, using a join table, and will automatically retrieve and save values as requested in your application.
Please note, however, that from one model you cannot (by default) filter by criteria on the related model (in this case, the model related by the join table). To do this, you will need to use the Containable behavior, which will allow you to set filter criteria on the related tables.
The one other caveat is that I don't know of a way (out of the box) to add some information about the relationship in the join table. For example, if you wanted to record (in the join table) whether the user has completed the task, you would have to write your own stuff there. I usually get around this by creating a model for the join table, which I then invoke whenever I want to retrieve data specific to the joined relationship. By doing it this way, you can also easily pull up the data from the joined tables. Anybody else have a better solution?